And note that every domain I have was bought and paid for from whoever owned it previously or registered from the free pool of domains. Also note that a significant portion of those was developed at some point or other but I chose to shut them down.
Wouldn't "intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else." apply in this case considering you are holding onto a bunch of domain names that you are not using? It is implied that someone is going to use that URL as a trademark of sorts, since it will usually describe their project/business.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Pro... says "The law was designed to thwart “cybersquatters” who register Internet domain names containing trademarks with no intention of creating a legitimate web site, but instead plan to sell the domain name to the trademark owner or a third party.[3]"
From a quick scan through Jacques' list of domains, I didn't see anything that looked like an existing trademark.
There's nothing wrong with owning something and not immediately developing it. It happens with physical assets all the time. Someone owns an empty plot of land and then one day someone else builds a shopping mall next to it. Now it's very valuable. Maybe you'll build a gas station or a restaurant on it now. Or it sits there just being an empty plot of land beside other empty plots of land. You never know.
You're 100% entitled to do what you want with your own property but please consider the view that domain names are important and finite resources and should be put to good use :)
How does this differ from: "You're 100% entitled to do what you want with your own property but please consider the view that gold is an important and finite resource and should be put to good use"
In the early 'net there was an ethos that the domain names system was an identifier service, not property. A domain name was an identifier that could be requested as needed, and in return for payment of a nominal fee would be delegated to the requester. The requester should then, if following netiquette, relinquish the identifier when no longer needed.
If instead the initial registration was taken as the sale of a commodity, the original way they were distributed didn't make a lot of sense. It would've made more sense to auction them off at fair market value, rather than registering new domains first-come/first-serve for a nominal fee.
I suppose that ship has long since sailed, though a few ccTLDs still retain that position, at least officially. DK Hostmaster's policy statement says that Domain names cannot be purchased, but borrowed. In other words, by registering a .dk domain name, you have acquired the right to use it. However they've given up trying to enforce that, and allow this "right to use" to be fully transferable, making it quasi-property. They still maintain a vestigial waitlist by which you can register to be next in line to receive a domain when the original owner relinquishes it, but this is in practice no longer used for anything that's in demand.
It seems extremely likely that it is the same person, but nevertheless, I don't think your comment is contributing to the discussion. I don't think domain squatting (or lack thereof) is relevant to a general offer to do arbitrary work as a journeyman for room and board.
